Reply With Quote
This might be more interesting after 5 beers.
This is probably the wrong time of day to post something like this. But it needs to get out there. Please recommend this diary to keep it on the front page.
On January 26, 2005, Rep. Sensenbrenner introduced the REAL ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 418). In the name of homeland security, it includes a number of items changing immigration laws, use of drivers' licenses, etc.
But -- most overlooked -- is Section 102 of this bill. It would empower the Secretary of Homeland Security to suspend any and all laws in order to ensure the "expeditious" construction of a set of barriers and roads south of San Diego, to keep illegal immigrants out. It also would prohibit ANY judicial review of the Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to suspend any law. ON EDIT: While the law the bill references mentions barriers and roads "near San Diego," it does not appear to be (technically speaking) limited to that area -- but to any barriers or roads "in the vicinity of the United States border." (See comments below).
The text of Section 102 is below:
SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.
Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Waiver-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.
What does this mean? What laws might the Secretary of Homeland Security suspend?
The first obvious sets of laws that would come under attack would be environmental and labor laws. On the environmental side, think "Endangered Species Act." On the labor side, think "Davis-Bacon" prevailing wage laws and the right to organize and collectively bargain.
Also think "whistleblower laws." Homeland Security wouldn't want any pesky do-gooders blowing the whistle on corruption in contract awards.
But wait, would all of these suspensions only apply to the physical, on-location construction of the roads and barriers?
Nope! There's no such limitation in the law. You can follow this right to suspend the laws anywhere someone might be claiming legal rights and slowing down the process. The manufacturers of equipment and materials would certainly fall under this provision, for example. The government workers dealing with any aspect of this construction, in Washington or California or wherever would also fall under this provision. A city council objecting to something about the project could fall under this provision.
It's an incredible usurpation of the rule of law. A cabinet secretary is given the right to suspend any and all laws. And guess what? The courts are prohibited from reviewing his decision! Perfect! So the Secretary can abuse his "authority" all he wants. No review. No nothing. Welcome to the Second Term.
Let me repeat the language:
"the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion"
Again:
"the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion"
Got it?
The bill may be going to the House floor next week.
Party of the people, by the people and for the people
This might be more interesting after 5 beers.
404: Image removed
Hasselhoff bandwidth exceeded!
Please contact your network administrator.
That signature scared me so much, I had to turn them off!
Is this to cover our asses just in case we need to round up some Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian or other ethnic groups like we did the Japanese?
They can write "No judicial review/jurisdiction/etc" into the Bill all they want, but the Cons ution is still the supreme law of the land and the courts WILL and DO have jurisdiction.
Sounds like a set up for "those activist judges never stop, do they" campaign.
What's to keep 'them' from just declaring Martial Law and suspending all civilian rights? This is a dangerous bill that seems to be designed solely to give the Homeland Security Dept a Carte Blanche check to cir vent local, state and federal judicial review where it sees fit. What other possible purpose can it have? Should this type of decision be left to one man?They can write "No judicial review/jurisdiction/etc" into the Bill all they want, but the Cons ution is still the supreme law of the land and the courts WILL and DO have jurisdiction.
This bill stinks, but fortunately, sanity should prevail and I doubt, in its current form, it has much of a chance to ever see a vote.
What do the right thinking members of this forum think? Why are they strangely silent.
That Homeland Security won't be bogged down by some local bureaucrat or left-wing whacko when it comes time to slam the border shut due to a national threat.
Any laws that would prevent them from erecting the barrier in the most expeditious manner possible?
Yeah their job would be so much easier without that Cons ution thing.
Well, if the legislation passes...that's Cons utional until a court of competent jurisdiction rules otherwise.
For grins, just exactly what article in the Cons ution do you believe would be violated by the passage of this legislation?
I don't have the time to look but I would imagine that the granting of the power to an executive branch member to usurp laws passed by Congress is not cons utionally kosher.
Can't wait to see your internets forum legal expert opinion...
Nothing is uncons utional until the courts say it is.
So, unless you find a precedent germain to this situation or are willing to file suit to stop the madness -- and then prevail; you're wrong. There is nothing in the Cons ution that says Congress cannot pass a law that excepts, from certain other laws (which by the way they pass), another branch of government.
, they do it all the time.
And, as for local, county, or state laws...well, the U.S. Cons ution doesn't really apply.
By the way, the U.S. Cons ution is only a couple of pages long, you should really try to read it sometime.
By the way are you an attorney or are you just talking out of your ass per usual?
So what if Congress passes a law ordering the destruction of the Judiciary is that cons utional until a court (which no longer exists) rules otherwise?
First of all, your statement assumes being an attorney and talking out of your ass are mutually exclusive. I've found that one can be an attorney and talk out of their ass.
So, you resort to invective and personal attacks when you're at a loss to answer or respond. Typical of many on this forum.
Okay, assuming the President signs it into law, it's uncons utional on it face because the U.S. Cons ution specifically creates a Judiciary and enumerates its powers and responsibilities. Therefore, the Congressional act would cons ute an amendment to the Cons ution requiring ratification by the States.
If that happened...well, goodbye Judiciary.
Thanks for proposing the farcical as possible.
Now that's rich.
Okay, assuming the President signs it into law, it's uncons utional on it face because the U.S. Cons ution specifically creates a Judiciary and enumerates its powers and responsibilities. Therefore, the Congressional act would cons ute an amendment to the Cons ution requiring ratification by the States.
If that happened...well, goodbye Judiciary.
Thanks for proposing the farcical as possible.
You set the example.
Glad you enjoyed it.
No, I used a realistic example that has actually occurred. You threw out one of those "what ifs" I'm always hearing from my Eleven year-old son.
Wait a minute...is that you son? Damnit, boy, what have I told you about visiting my bookmarks on the internet. Now log off and go feed your gerbil.
Yeah, if only your kid could see you now.
Look, you just said that the Congress could cir vent the Cons ution by passing a law (not amending it) which of course leads to all kinds of possibilities.
ummmm...no, that's not what he said....
He just walked by.
I never said Congress could cir vent the Cons ution. I said there was nothing in the Cons ution that specifically prohibits Congress from excepting a branch of the federal government from the laws it passes. They do it all the time.
In fact, I wish there was a Cons utional provision that specifically prohibited Congress from passing laws by which they, themselves, don't have to abide.
You're the bozo that suggested what they were doing was uncons utional and, when I asked you what article of the cons ution it violated, you pled laziness.
Seriously, shut up and do your Fifth Grade homework.
Thanks travis, someone in here can read.
Here's what the exalted one said:
Looking back at the bill in question it clearly would attempt to cir vent the right of the courts to judicial review...There is nothing in the Cons ution that says Congress cannot pass a law that excepts, from certain other laws (which by the way they pass), another branch of government.
It's a school day is it not?
Yeah but there's that judicial review thing.I never said Congress could cir vent the Cons ution. I said there was nothing in the Cons ution that specifically prohibits Congress from excepting a branch of the federal government from the laws it passes. They do it all the time.
Man shut the up I remember when you claimed to have a Berkley education and all you could come up with was that you once set foot on that campus.In fact, I wish there was a Cons utional provision that specifically prohibited Congress from passing laws by which they, themselves, don't have to abide.
You're the bozo that suggested what they were doing was uncons utional and, when I asked you what article of the cons ution it violated, you pled laziness.
How about you shut the up you Goddam nutjob?Seriously, shut up and do your Fifth Grade homework.
Really? Aside from judicial review being an invention of the Supreme Court (see Marlborough vs. Madison) and not an article of the Cons ution, where do you get the impression Congress is trying to cir vent the Judiciary? Did anything in the law restrict public recourse?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
